Posted
by
Unknown Lamer
on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @07:04AM
from the here-we-go-again dept.

An anonymous reader writes The news aggregator Fark is ancient in dot com terms. Users submit news links to the privately run site and tear it — and each other — to pieces in the discussion threads. (Sound familiar?) While the site isn't as popular as during the early 2000s, the privately run discussion forum has continued and has its champions. site operator Drew Curtis announced today that Gifs, references, jokes and comments involving sexism will be deleted. "Adam Savage once described to me the problem this way: if the Internet was a dude, we'd all agree that dude has a serious problem with women. We've actually been tightening up moderation style along these lines for awhile now, but as of today, the FArQ will be updated with new rules reminding you all that we don't want to be the He Man Woman Hater's Club. This represents enough of a departure from pretty much how every other large internet community operates that I figure an announcement is necessary."

...but I'm getting really annoyed by this "anti misogynist" theater. It feels like a hostile takeover. A lot of good things have been sidetracked and derailed and are now reduced to political correctness banter. All the people who want to get shit done leave when the oppressed women show up. And I mean "show up". They're not women who were there and now feel like they need to change their own environment.

Back when the whole Mozilla controversy was going on there were endless posts about how "just not liking gays" was somehow a perfectly okay position to take, and blaming them for daring to demand equality and human rights.

Back when the whole Mozilla controversy was going on there were endless posts about how "just not liking gays" was somehow a perfectly okay position to take, and blaming them for daring to demand equality and human rights.

Yes, not liking a group of people is a perfectly okay position to take. Lots of people who claim to stand up for "equality" themselves dislike lots of other groups (capitalists, conservatives, etc.). Likewise, equality [of outcome] and [positive] human rights are something many people reject, including people ostensibly intended to be "beneficiaries" of such policies. What you are complaining about are valid political positions you simply happen to disagree with.

Basically Fark has one particular mod, of a gender I don't need to mention, who gets upset every time she greenlights another trashy Jezebel link and the Fark regulars (rightly) rip it to shreds. Admittedly, some posters cross the lines of good taste in doing so, but most just point out that Jezebel itself does more to advance misogyny than any forum trolls could ever do.

The official announcement thread for the new policy pretty much says it all. Fark regulars openly mocked this new policy, much like anti-beta posts here... All while shown prominent links to Foobies (along with plenty of other not exactly "wymyn friendly" advertisements) in the sidebar. This policy will last a whole week, unless Drew goes nuclear and literally bans half the userbase. But hey, we need another MetaFilter since Google has starved off the original, right?

For those seriously debating the "need" for websites to take actions like this, look at Slashdot as a role-model. Put bluntly, sites that feel the need to censor their comments simply have inadequate moderation systems. As much as Slashdot's doesn't always work to bring the best to the top, it does do an amazing job of pushing the complete garbage to the bottom. Browse at -1, and Slashdot looks much like Gorgor-era Fark; browse at 2+, and threads look like a coherent discussion of the issues broached in TFA.

Go check out the main page thread where this was discussed. Basically, it was all the women saying thank you, some of the men saying that's great, and just the mention of "well, what about misandry" getting said poster curb stomped. It's still perfectly fine to call a man a "fedora wearing neckbeard" or a "men's rights actvist (MRA)" as derogatory terms, but if you make even the slightest negative remark about anything "feminism" and you'll get you comment either deleted, get a "time out", or even so far as get banned.

One of the moderators is a very outspoken feminist. And while she is actually a very bright young woman, she has no clue just how much damage she actually does to her own cause with some of the crap she spews there (think Jezebel level man hating). I'm betting she had a strong hand in these changes.

(posted as AC because my screen names here and there are almost identical, and the way the "popular kids" are acting now, if someone knew I posted this it might bring the banhammer down on my head)

No, for the same reason why a news article that talks about a white supremacist assaulting a African-American isn't automatically racist. Or one about Westboro Baptist Church picketing a funeral of someone who was gay doesn't make it automatically homophobic. The context of the whole article is what makes it misogynistic (or racist, or homophobic, or...)

Now if that Reuters article had that same line, but then followed it with that the woman shouldn't have been out of the kitchen. Or she just needed to fix a sandwich. Or any other misogynistic ideas according to modern society then yes, it would be banned.

The regulars didn't leave, AmiMoJo, least of all you who seem to show up regularly in the tediously increasing (and increasingly tedious) number of stories about how white western women, the most privileged creatures on this planet, have it so bad.

I certainly haven't noticed a raft of gay hating posts around here (any more than the usual trolling) but any chance to drum up a moral panic eh? What I did see was a lot of discontent with the McCarthyist pogrom that was going on. That's the sort of thing that raises hackles, and it can be traced back to the post structuralist academics who teach people that the phrase 'I find that offensive' is a valid argument and why we have hate speech laws at the same time we claim to value freedom of speech.

Anyway, yeah Fark. If they're going to tackle sexism they need to make sure they tackle all sexism, so no dick, cock, or misandric jokes either.

Otherwise that would be sexist.

It's been on the downslope for a while regardless, my guess is there aren't many gasps left in the old boiler.

Yes, not liking a group of people is a perfectly okay position to take. Lots of people who claim to stand up for "equality" themselves dislike lots of other groups (capitalists, conservatives, etc.). Likewise, equality [of outcome] and [positive] human rights are something many people reject, including people ostensibly intended to be "beneficiaries" of such policies. What you are complaining about are valid political positions you simply happen to disagree with.

Being gay isn't an ideology. Disliking homosexuals is completely different from not liking capitalists, conservatives, liberals, etc. Disliking homosexuals is disliking people for something that they didn't choose and cannot change. It is not a political opinion, and it is not acceptable.

Furthermore, note that "disliking homosexuals" is marginal, even among evangelical Christian organizations. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention [wikipedia.org] is the largest protestant body in the US, and are evangelical Baptists. Their Resolution on Homosexuality [sbc.net], while harmful and deeply misguided, doesn't go nearly that far. In fact, it contains the language "God loves the homosexual."

Finally, I feel obligated to point out that you seem to be implicitly lumping LGBT rights activists with those seeking "equality of outcome," as though that program is seeking some sort of government handout. The key issue for LGBT rights activists is freedom to marry, which is "equal treatment under the law," not "equality of outcome."

Seconded. Slashdot is a haven for rational thought, which naturally and innately fights all ignorance including sexism. The thing is, rationalism fights antiwomen and antiman sexism alike and doesn't give either undue focus. That's not good enough for people of certain political bent.

Disliking homosexuals is disliking people for something that they didn't choose and cannot change. It is not a political opinion, and it is not acceptable.

Scratch homosexual and put in pedophile (used in the broad, incorrect way) and are you still so strongly supportive? How about the rest of the "fire Eich" brigade? I don't see too many people defending their rights. You think one is morally wrong and some people think they're both morally wrong. Eich did "tolerate" homosexuals by the way- he just didn't think they should marry. You may disagree with him but disagreeing with his right to have a political opinion is a bit different than wanting him to "tolerate". Which is the problem with using the term. "Tolerate" is a nebulous concept and is often (mis)used as a moral mallet to make others look bad and the user to feel superior.

Now before you go and think I am saying something I am not I happen to largely agree with you- and probably for mostly the same reasons. I disagree with using it as a means to morally elevate yourself above others- which is pretty much what the whole debacle was about. Trying to legislate or force morality on others never turns out well. Moral superiority is far too addictive and unstable.

"Derailing" is apparently the new term for pointing out inconsistency and hypocrisy. Not really surprising, ideologies love redefining words.

We get it. Women are precious, delicate snowflakes who have to be protected from harsh language and a world that is out to make a meal out of them, and society has to do it, because they're too fragile to do it for themselves.

Wait, what do you mean that's not the message feminism is trying to send? Could have fooled me.

You *can* however, make it very clear that such behaviour is no longer acceptable in civilized society.

The human population on this planet is now well over 8 billion strong. It is virtually impossible for people to not run into each other, and only slightly less impossible to not run into people that you *choose* to despise.

It's well past time that we grow the f__k up, for our own safety. But people being people, I have zero faith in that actually happening.

Being gay isn't an ideology. Disliking homosexuals is completely different from not liking capitalists, conservatives, liberals, etc. Disliking homosexuals is disliking people for something that they didn't choose and cannot change. It is not a political opinion, and it is not acceptable.

As a gay man, I have had to accept that people dislike me for something I didn't choose. Your draconian attempts to force others to accept me make things worse for me.

The key issue for LGBT rights activists is freedom to marry, which is "equal treatment under the law," not "equality of outcome."

Organizations like the HRC very much push laws like ENDA, which goes far beyond "equal treatment under the law". As for marriage, a far better way of achieving "equal treatment under the law" is to stop having the state interfere in how people arrange their personal lives or try to come up with legal definitions for religious concepts.

I'm sure all this overbearing political correctness that tortures you so will start to disappear once it stops being the case that every woman on Twitter who says anything remotely prominent stops getting hundreds of rape threats in response.

But good for you, standing up for the right to be annoyed that uppity women keep complaining about all the rape threats they keep getting.

I agree. I'm Canadian where we do allow homosexual marriage (which I'm fine with), but ideally I would like the concept of civil marriage to be done away with. If you believe in a religion that has marriage, then that's fine and feel free to marry/divorce according to that religions customs/beliefs. But, that shouldn't have any effect on our civil lives regarding taxes, benefits etc.

Disliking homosexuals is disliking people for something that they didn't choose and cannot change. It is not a political opinion, and it is not acceptable.

What? Fuck you sideways. I mean, I personally have no problem whatsoever with lesbigaytrangenderedetc people but I will stand up for anyone's right to do so. I get off the bus before it gets to the stop where you're permitted to treat people with prejudice when you're in a position of power. If I am a public figure who has a responsibility to people regardless of their sexual orientation, ideally you would have no idea what my personal position in fact is because I would do my job and it would not matter.

Further, there's plenty of gay people who don't like straight people, or don't like straight people of certain kinds. Are you going to go tell them that's not okay? Or is it still acceptable to hate on nominally white, nominally straight males?

If you're going to start claiming that evangelical christians are like god, then you're really going to have to deal with an endless deluge of laughter and derision.

The key issue for LGBT rights activists is freedom to marry, which is "equal treatment under the law," not "equality of outcome."

No, no it is not. The key issue for LGBT rights activists is equality, which is "equal treatment under the law". It is a mark of how far our society has not come that we are actually arguing over one specific aspect of equality with such fervor. Next, we will get to move onto the next aspect of equality, still without actually recognizing that homosexuals are human beings who deserve equal protection under the law to every other human being. Instead, we continue to treat them like a subclass, and make them beg, plead, and finally fight for each individual right. Perhaps soon we will permit them to sit in the front of the bus.

No, that's just plain wrong.The first amendment only applies the US government.Freedom of speech is a universal ideal.The right to freedom of speech is a legal quandary.Censorship is an action that anyone can do, rightly or wrongly, legally or illegally, in a multitude ways with a broad spectrum of severity.If you think that it is only limited to a niche type of occurrence and doesn't apply to you then you're pretty damn closed-minded.

That being said, why is this offensive speech worthy of protection and not, anti-semitic, anti-christian, anti-islamic, anti-gay, pro-abortion, anti-abortion,.....

It's worthy of protection against censorship the same way that anti-semitic, anti-christian, anti-islamic, anti-gay, pro-abortion, and anti-abortion sentiments are worthy of protection, despite how offensive they are to you and me.

"I might not agree with what you say, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it."

But yeah, Drew can do whatever he want with his site. I stopped going there years ago so it's really no skin off my teeth.

No, Fark has just started to run counter to what made Fark good and fun and famous. Boobies links, "I'd hit it" jokes, erudition, and irreverence for taboos and political correctness have been replaced with sponsored headlines, recycled 4chan memes, and the kinds of banal, insight-free commentary you'd expect to hear from lumpy blue hairs sipping coffee in rural truck stops.

You missed the point entirely. It's the statement that they generally "just don't like gays". Homosexuals make up about 5% of the population, 1 in 20. Saying you just don't like people who are homosexual is saying you don't like a random 5% of the population for no reason other than who they are attracted to. Personality, political views, religion or anything else they can choose is fair game, but sexuality is not in the same way that race and gender isn't.

Imagine if it were "I just don't like blacks" or "I just don't like women". It's the literal definition of bigotry - a general dislike of a large group for reasons that have nothing to do with anything that group can control, or anything that applies to all members.

First, let me state in no uncertain terms that, in very important ways, homosexuality and pedophilia are not equivalent and cannot serve as functional substitutes for one another in a debate in general. This is because "homosexuality" describes desires upon which to act is normal, healthy, and acceptable, while "pedophilia," in the sense you mean, describes desires upon which to act is harmful and unacceptable.

That said, in the broad sense you mean, I am supportive of pedophiles who refrain from acting on their desires. I don't know all that much about pedophilia, but I am under the impression that, as with attraction to a specific gender, attraction to children is innate and cannot be altered through willpower or other known means. Those who are afflicted with attraction to children yet do not harm them (either themselves or through child pornographers) deserve our acceptance and understanding. Anyone who spurns them causes suffering and misery, without justice. (In fact, I suspect this widespread hatred likely causes many such people to look more favorably on those who would encourage them to harm children.)

Also, by the way, I do not think that people who express (in words, without threat or intimidation) dislike for homosexuals or disapproval of homosexual acts or marriage are "morally wrong." Some are expressing political opinions which are misguided. This is not morally or ethically wrong; I just disagree with them. Others describe broader positions, the collective prevalence of which does real harm to homosexuals beyond the political realm by creating the unjust social burden of being treated as an outcast or deviant in many contexts and communities, with consequences ranging from loneliness and shame to poverty and suicide. Nevertheless, those espousing these positions are not committing a moral act; they are simply wrong, and the harm they cause is in the domain of ethics, rather than morality. (Those who shout slurs or otherwise intentionally intimidate people are morally wrong, but we weren't discussing them I don't think.)

Finally, stop trying to create some sort of equivalence over, for example, being fired for a political opinion and being fired for being gay. Both are generally wrong, but they are not the same.

Criticizing feminists and feminism is not misogyny. Unfortunately, white knighting fools get this wrong quite a bit. Calling people 'haters' or their positions as hateful are not arguments either.

I'm sure he won't also allow equivalent criticism of men, right? Oh wait, who am I kidding? Anti-male feminist vitriol is perfectly ok. People who actually take so much offense to free expression that they insist on censorship are really the ones who need help. If these were baptists, no one would give them any mercy, but when feminists and/or women are the target, suddenly 'equality' gets thrown out the window by knee jerking white knight mangina useful idiots swooping in to 'save' them. This 'fark dude' is one of them apparently.

I also like how he claims his site "represents enough of a departure from pretty much every other internet community that [he figures] an announcement is necessary", totally ignoring the fact that lots of sites are doing this, now, out of a relatively new culture of PC corporate sterility and/or morbid fear of losing clicks. This new 'social justice' bandwagon of appealing to the feelings of the easily offended makes for a 'perfect' excuse. What happened to round-filing complaints for unpopular criticism and calling whiners out for the losers they are?

People owning and running businesses should be allowed to choose whith whom they associate and do business and then the ones which discriminate against otherwise good, paying customers can rightfully go under instead of being propped up by the policies of the state.

That's precisely the kind of thinking that led to child labor in factories and mines; it is also why we have to subsidize low paying jobs through our taxes so people can survive at a (somewhat) more reasonable level. It is what led to "whites only" and "separate bathrooms"; It is why the male/female employment ratios are so skewed; it is why older engineers are replaced by younger ones who know far less and don't have families to support; it is why the EPA, or something like it, really needs to exist. And so on.

Business, large and small, incorporated or not, as entities, resemble people only to the degree that most of them, left unregulated, exhibit sociopathy and/or psychopathy. History has shown this explicitly, time and time again. No one is guessing about this: the facts have been in for a long time, and new facts consistent with the old continue to arrive with distressing regularity.

The idea that business, left to its own discretions, will do the right thing is nothing more than a fantasy. Unregulated business is a very bad idea, and further, the premise that bad businesses will automatically fail because customers will do the right thing is equally bankrupt, and for many of the same reasons. Large numbers of people are both selfish and disinterested in the welfare of others.

Which is not surprising, considering sites like Jezebel routinely use disparaging remarks against men in the headlines and content of their articles, like calling someone who wants equality for men a "jackass" and a "shitnugget." http://jezebel.com/jackass-sui... [jezebel.com]

I'm not saying that they are in any way responsible for people posting porn GIFs, or posting misogynistic comments. Two wrongs don't make a right. I *am* saying that Jezebel needs to take a very close look in the mirror and lead by example. No civil rights effort has ever succeeded by villainizing the other side, and equality should mean equality, not superiority or an attempt to collectively punish a group of people based on a few bad actors.

I'll admit that men have many advantages over women in America. We are not a minority -- we are, in fact, a majority, and thus can exert more political influence. Under 30, we are better educated, earn more, have more health benefits, options, and social programs. We live longer. We're excluded from compulsory military service. We are more likely to pass along our genes. We get courted by women who try to impress us, please us, and pamper us. If we're not impressed, we can obtain the genetic material of a more suitable mate for a nominal fee without having to deal with that whole "relationship" thing. We prevail in custody cases under a presumption that we're better parents. We are but 30% of the homeless population. We are sentenced more leniently for the same crimes, and more likely to receive warnings for speeding. When we make bad decisions, it's an accident -- everyone knows we have good intentions. We are almost never charged with sexual assault, let alone convicted, and we receive more support when we're the victims. We can use our sexuality to our advantage. Women are often our fiercest advocates, and protect us unfailingly against external threats. Women provide for us.

English needs a word for people like her. They're definitely an increasingly prevalent "type" of individual in our society.

A unique form of parasite, they invade the host organism, an organization or a cause or whatever. Contributing nothing but their slimeball social climbing, they subtly and expertly worm themselves into positions of minor authority, then persistently use that minor authority to gain more and drive off any threats. Like most parasites, the organism itself suffers almost from the moment of infection, and is certain to die an eventual wasting, lingering death.

Totally hollow. She thinks dressing up like Rainbow Brite and watching Firefly makes her a geek, and counts on superficial charm to summon a cavalry of white knights whenever anyone calls her out on it.

My partner and I have been together for almost 13 years. We have one of those very good relationships where we talk about problems instead of getting to the point of yelling, etc. She has a very audacious sense of humor and feels comfortable joking about spousal abuse (amongst other things) because she knows that spousal abuse is such a foreign concept in our relationship. ("I know I said I would cook tonight, but I'm ordering pizza. Please don't beat me...") I say the same back.

If someone didn't understand the context and overheard us joking in this way, they might think there was an actual issue with violence in our household. And I think this is the impetus with the new censorship rule on Fark. If you're not a frequenter of Fark discussions and stumble across one of many memes without the historical context, you'll think everyone there is a rape-shrugging, gay-bashing, general hater. And you would be wrong.

----------------------Let's talk about a couple of the memes:

40 lbs. Box of Rape (http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2Z7SafOiCXM/hqdefault.jpg) - If you simply read someone threaten to "send a 40 lbs. box of rape" to another person, you'd think that was a horrible concept. Boxed rape!? The idea alone is atrocious. That is until you figure out that someone took a photo of a box of rapeseed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapeseed), considered the homonym audaciously humorous, and put it online. The internet went wild with the hilariously outlandish concept of "boxed rape" (the action, not the seed) and it has since been part of tongue-in-cheek, context-driven discussion.

Blazing Saddles references - The Mel Brooks movie 'Blazing Saddles' is synonymous with audacious humor and if any one work of artistic endeavor was to embody the spirit of Fark, it would be this movie. It addresses rape, penis size, stereotypes (beneficial and detrimental), racism, homophobia-- nothing is so sacred that it cannot be laughed at. But consider the actual context-- Mel Brooks projects absurdity upon each of these ideas by making their offenders look absolutely ridiculous. And for the most part, Fark feels and acts within the same vein.

Glenn Beck's mythical crime in 1990 - Fark is one of the grand purveyors of the myth that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. They publicized the hoax not as a means of directly implicating Glenn Beck in a crime that never happened, but to demonstrate the effectiveness of the political messaging system that was/is constantly making extreme accusations in the form of inquiry. So Fark (amongst others) shot back. "Why hasn't Glenn Beck denied...?"

'Legitimate' Rape - A couple years back, a conservative politician stated that abortions do not need to be available to women because in the case of 'legitimate rape', the female body has a means of preventing any impregnation at all. This, of course, is absolutely absurd... which is why Fark latched onto it. It's demonstrative of really, really stupid politician commenting on thing about which he knows little and Fark thrives on such snafus. So when a story comes up regarding rape, you're likely to see the idea of "legitimate rape" be brought up-- not because they're suggesting a distinction, but because they're restating the absurdity of this concept.-------------------

If you are under the impression that Fark users tell jokes that promote rape, sexism, racism, or discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation, then you don't know Fark. Farkers celebrate every gain in the realm of gay rights and attack heinous acts with derision.

If you don't understand that Fark's use of rape, sexism, and homosexuality in their humor comes from a Mel Brooks-style commentary on the absurdity various ideals and actions, then you don't understand Fark. It's disappointing that this kind of humor will no longer be tolerated as it pertains to these specific topics because it's a cathartic outlet for audacious humor in a good direction.

Riddle me this - if women are somehow, somewhere being paid less for doing the same job, having the same experience and qualifications as men, why wouldn't employers hire the cheaper employee? I mean did you perhaps miss the whole outsourcing thing? They aren't moving operations wholesale to Shanghai for the local cuisine.

Which leads us to the next question, which is - what sort of mind is unable to take the minimal critical steps internally not to ask these sorts of questions immediately?

Healthcare, female specific health issues garner between two and twelve times as much funding as male, and even then the feminists complain about movember.

And we can talk about lifespan disparities, the enormous suicide disparities, jail sentencing disparities, numbers enrolling and graduating from third level institutions disparities, inequality of outcome in the family courts (see what I did there?), VAWA laws that have resulted in female child abusers actually getting child support from their underaged victims, disparities in the numbers of homeless, and so on and on and on.

Although I do like the way you rounded it off with a fairly elderly shaming tactic. Vintage.

You just proved my point in its entirety. You think one is wrong and the other isn't. Others believe both are wrong. You even use the same language as homophobes. They think that homosexuality is not normal, healthy or acceptable.

That said, in the broad sense you mean, I am supportive of pedophiles who refrain from acting on their desires. I don't know all that much about pedophilia, but I am under the impression that, as with attraction to a specific gender, attraction to children is innate and cannot be altered through willpower or other known means.

But someone that says they are fine with gays as long as they don't act on it (like getting married) is still a homophobe and intolerant. That is what the whole Eich fiasco was about.

Finally, stop trying to create some sort of equivalence over, for example, being fired for a political opinion and being fired for being gay. Both are generally wrong, but they are not the same.

Other than being fired unjustly I guess they are different. I never tried to make them "equivalent". They are both wrong. Just because you think one is "more" wrong doesn't justify the other nor excuse it from criticism. I'm perfectly capable of criticizing both.

I have to stress that I do not in any way, shape or form condone any kind of homophobia and I believe that not allowing gay marriage is against your Constitution (and would require an amendment if it wasn't). I am only against the huge number of people that get very sanctimonious about it. That only retards progress.

Except that, in the mozilla case, it was a couple of gay employees who couldn't tolerate the presence of the new CEO who donated private funds to an anti gay marriage effort. Gays are human, too, thus they can be just as intolerant as any other human.

Actually, in free countries, people should be free to like or dislike whoever they want for any reason they want, and form their associations accordingly. The reason gays, feminists and other left wing activists get so much shit is because their 'tolerance' only goes in one direction. They want to dictate what others can do to/say about them, but they want it no holds barred when they're the ones spewing vitriol. Get a gay person fired because he's gay? Instant condemnation and legal action. Get a brand new CEO fired for donating private funds to an anti gay marriage effort years before? That's apparently a-OK. So much for tolerance, right?

Those LGBT activists use the same flawed reasoning for their positions as SPLC does for race issues. They're all a part of the same political spectrum. They argue from perpetual victimhood to justify privilege for themselves or their target demographic at everyone else's expense, be it finances or liberty. If they just wanted the freedom to marry, they'd lobby to get the state out of marriage altogether, but it's obvious they would rather use the state to force organizations who don't agree with their lifestyle to conform.

The very fact that you think you have the moral authority to say people should be fired for their political beliefs is what I'm contending. You say that because you think it causes harm that it's totally fine to infringe on political freedom. If Eich had have started firing people for supporting pro gay marriage groups I'd have the same problem with that (plus other problems since I'm pro gay marriage).

There are a whole lot of people that think that homosexuality is harmful. They are wrong. You are never going to change their minds by telling them "no u". Emotional arguments cannot defeat emotional arguments. They only inflame people.

I am perfectly capable of defending someone's political freedom without having to agree with their politics. If I wasn't then I wouldn't be capable of defending anyone's political freedom.

The reason you feel you are arguing over and over again is because you keep insisting you have some kind of moral authority and ignoring the fact that people are telling you that you do not. You give absolutes that don't apply to yourself as soon as you feel they don't.

Perhaps it was poorly stated on my part. What I was meaning was an article about WBC picketing a funeral does not make the article homophobic just because the subject the article about is.

The original comment was would Fark prohibit a legitimate news article that reported on a (horribly understated) misogynistic action. And I was saying no, because it wasn't the news article that was necessarily misogynistic, rather it was the action being reported on. If someone came along and said that the victim got what she deserved, then that would be prohibited.